Skip to main content

Analyzing the Risks and Benefits of Medical Treatment

A fundamental skill that physicians rely on is calculating risk/benefit analyses when we advise patients.  My use of the word ‘calculating’ is a misnomer as there is no reliable scientific method to quantify risk and benefit.  Indeed, different physicians might ‘calculate’ such an analysis differently.  Similarly, different patients in the same medical circumstances might gauge the potential medical benefit differently.  This is not hard science. 

Some folks might feel that a 5% risk of a major complication is acceptable, while others would balk at this statistic.  And on the benefit side, is it worth taking a medication that has some risk with the hope that it might shave 1 day off of a 7 day illness? 

Despite that risk/benefit analyses are not easily quantified, physicians and patients must enter into a dialogue on this issue when a treatment or a test is being proposed.  The participants have to do their best to tease through the issues.

If a 25-year-old athlete develops acute appendicitis, a risk/benefit analysis likely favors surgery.

If an 80-year-old individual develops acute appendicitis, but also suffers from severe emphysema and heart disease, a risk/benefit analysis might favor a conservative approach with antibiotics.

And, as every doctor knows, some patients analyze the risk/benefit balance differently than do their doctors. 

Medicine is an art.


Can’t doctors simply look up the risks and benefits of medical treatments in medical journals or other sources?  It’s not as easy as it sounds.  When physicians research a particular treatment with regard to risk and efficacy, often the patients in a research study are different from the patient sitting in the office.  So, doctors must be cautious before extrapolating published research conclusions to real world patients.  Unlike my own patients, research participants are tightly screened.  Many candidates for the research trial were disqualified from the study for a variety of reasons.  So, for example, if a high quality published study concludes that a new medication decreases the risk of a heart attack by 10%, this applies only to the type of patients that were admitted into the study.  It is understandable, however, that lay person who reads about this study might erroneously assume that he and everyone else should be on this medicine.  Similarly, a study that points out adverse reactions and side-effects of a treatment does not mean that a random patient outside of the study would face this outcome.   I encourage all who read about medical developments in the lay press to view the material through a skeptical lens.

Do your best to understand the respective risks and benefits of the reasonable diagnostic and treatment options for your condition.  It is your doctor’s responsibility to help you to navigate through this.  But this is not a mathematical calculation where every doctor would reach the same point.  If you present the same medical patient to 10 different doctors, don’t expect consensus.  Are you familiar with the adage, medicine is an art, not a science?

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. If I could marry comments that relate to 2 of your recent columns, this one and the one on pharma. Pharmaceutical companies have spent a great deal of money developing their drug and want to sell their med. Sometimes they oversell and are in cahoots with the medical establishment. For example, say drug X reduces people from being hospitalized for Heart Failure from 10 per year to 8 per year. This is a relative risk reduction of 20% which sounds pretty good. But the absolute risk reduction is only 2 per year which means you have to treat 50 to benefit one person. Somehow these modest benefits often make it into society guidelines and all the specialists start doing it even though it costs a lot. Can you see how this might add to health care costs with marginal benefits?
      Elliot Davidson, MD

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Becoming a Part-Time Physician

Next month my schedule will change.  I will henceforth be off on Fridays with my work week truncated to Monday through Thursday.   I am excited to be enjoying a long weekend every weekend.  And while the schedule change is relatively minor, this event does feel like an important career moment for me.  It is the first step on a journey that will ultimately lead beyond my professional career.  It is this recognition that makes this modest schedule modification more significant than one would think it deserves.  As some readers know,   my current employed position has been a dream job for me.   Prior to this, I was in a small private practice, which I loved, but was much more challenging professionally and personally.   My partner and I ran the business.   Working nights, weekends and holidays were routine for decades.   On an on-call night, if I slept  through until morning, I felt as if I had won the lottery.   And w...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Will Smarter Lawyers End Frivolous Lawsuits?

How do you know if a lawyer is any good?  Of course, they've all passed the bar, but now their profession is lowering it.  While most of us strive for excellence, and raise our children to value this virtue, prominent legal educators are establishing a new quality intitiative for their profession.  Who says that lawyers can't reform themselves?  Perhaps, we physicians can follow their bold example and raise the credentials of our pre-medical students.  I’ll present the facts. You be the judge. I have written a dozen posts on tort reform on this blog, which always generate spirited and adversarial retorts from attorneys and their supporters. They accuse me and other tort reform advocates of carrying water for insurance companies. They repeatedly point out that I know nothing about the legal system and are unqualified to opine on its flaws. They deride me when I argue that effective tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, despite the re...